Wikipedia:Peer review/Hedley Verity/archive1

Hedley Verity
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to take it to FAC soon. It had a thorough GA review and I'm interested in any prose clean-up required, cricketing jargon and any instances of over-detailing.

Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments
 * "in 40 Tests " link to Test cricket.
 * Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Should medium paced be medium-paced? Check all these, although I have to admit I'm not entirely ever sure about this!
 * I think it should, so I changed it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

"*Fixed (and reworked that part). --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "remains (as of 2011). " -> "which, as of 2012, remains."
 * " over the next few years" -> "over the following years"?
 * Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * " Source: [1], " in the infobox, would prefer "Source: [Crickinfo]"
 * Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Consider linking Sunday school in case that's not a universally common term.
 * Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "in total he took 29 wickets " you haven't said how many games he played so this "in total" is a little difficult to put into context.
 * No idea how many games it was, but I still think we need "in total" so no-one thinks it was in one game or in his career, etc. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You relink Yorkshire Country Cricket Club here but not bowling average. Is there a reason?
 * Linked average on first mention after lead. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "By 1926, when he scored 488 runs and took 62 wickets " would be worth making it clear that this is what he managed to achieve during the entire season and not in some mega-match.
 * Clarified. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Aha, you do link bowling average, just quite a way down the paragraph.
 * Fixed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "Professional cricketer" I think I count 8 consecutive sentences where you refer to him as Verity. Can we rework this a little for less jarring prose?
 * Ouch. Fixed some: it is a bit tricky at the start of the section as using "he" would be ambiguous, but tried to sort some of the others. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "Beginning to attract more notice" a bit odd-sounding, maybe "attract more attention"?
 * Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "and came top " -> "and finished top"?
 * Not sure about either one, so went for "topped". --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "The senior professionals in the Yorkshire team, Rhodes and Emmott Robinson, discussed tactics with Verity and his friend and team-mate Bill Bowes, and analysed their errors." I don't know about you but there are quite a few "and"s in this sentence...
 * Took one out and re-ordered sentence to make it less jarring. Better? --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "to take ten wickets in a " maybe clarify that this was "all" ten wickets for those who aren't quite sure of the significance of this performance.
 * Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Could link "six" to Boundary (cricket) for those who don't know what that means.
 * Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Observation - it rained a lot during Verity's career, didn't it?!
 * Oh yes! Bill Bowes actually that when Verity came into the team, it did nothing but rain, to the former's resigned amusement! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * " Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC)" you've already linked and abbreviated this.
 * Fixed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "this remains the best analysis recorded in first-class cricket in 2011" not quite what you mean, perhaps "as of 2012, this remains the best bowling analysis recorded in first-class cricket."
 * Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "Chosen for the first " prefer the more conventional "Selected..."
 * Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "so that Verity bowled just five overs" -> "restricting Verity to five overs"?
 * Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "owing to England's Bodyline tactics." -> "as England once again resorted to Bodyline tactics" (as you've said they did it a couple of times already, I thought it might be nice to reflect that).
 * Reworded this to reflect it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "he took part in partnerships" reads oddly to me, "he formed partnerships" perhaps?
 * Went for "shared". --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * " overs in the first innings,[29] In Australia's second innings" something not quite right...
 * Fixed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "when he was permitted to use more attacking tactics" what does this mean, who gave him permission? Was it Bodyline spin?!
 * Ha! Tried to reword to explain this without going into too much detail over attacking spin bowling. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Could link West Indies cricket team.
 * Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "although other players declined " -> "although others declined..."
 * Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "the high number " not keen but brainfreeze stops me thinking of an alternative.
 * Had a go at this. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Is Sind the same as Sindh cricket team?
 * Yup, linked (but kept the spelling of Sind as that is what the source gives. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "HMS Verity" should be "HMS Verity".
 * Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You relink "Flight (cricket)" here, any reason?
 * I think for the benefit of the non-specialist; it's not obvious that "flight" as a skill and "flighting the ball" are the same thing, I don't think. But maybe I'm being dim. However, it was deliberate, whether it is right or not! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Could link "South Africa cricket team"?
 * Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Last seven sentences of "Career in the mid-1930s" has "Verity" nine times...
 * Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Who was Voce?
 * Clarified and rather naughtily linked inside a quote as he is not otherwise mentioned. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You link Leveson-Gower on only the third instance...
 * FIxed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "the batsmen played in a negative fashion, despite pitches that were very good for batting. High scoring games " don't seem to go together for me...
 * Not quite sure what you mean. The batting was deadly dull, even though the pitches were really good and they could have scored quickly and safely. The result was big, slow scores and someone or other wrote that both sides took it all far too seriously. Should any of this go in to make it clearer?--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Egypt, Syria, we don't tend to link obvious country names any more.
 * Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Note 3, MCC or M.C.C.?
 * MCC, unfortunately. I much prefer the old-fashioned look of M.C.C. but it really buggers the punctuation... --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Ref 68 missing a full stop.
 * Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Ref 103 missing a pp.
 * Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, very helpful. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)